Back
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
B. P. COLABAWALLA, J
BRIHANMUMBAI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION - Appellant
Versus
ANUSAYA SITARAM DEVRUKHKAR AND ORS. - Respondent
IA/13254/2024
Decided On : 07-01-2025
(A) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 74 - Appeals against awards of Reference Authority - Delay in filing appeals - Applications for condonation of delay beyond 120 days dismissed as the court lacks power to condone delay beyond this limit. (Paras 39, 40)
(B) Limitation Act, 1963 - Sections 5 and 29 - Applicability of Section 5 to appeals under the 2013 Act - The court concluded that the 2013 Act expressly excludes the applicability of Section 5, thus limiting the condonation of delay to a total of 120 days. (Paras 26, 32)
(C) Interpretation of Statutes - Distinction between general and special laws - The court emphasized that whether a law is general or special is context-dependent. (Paras 10, 14)
Facts of the case:
The appeals were filed by MCGM challenging the Reference Authority's awards regarding compensation under the 2013 Act, with applications for condonation of delay beyond the statutory limit.
Findings of Court:
The court held that it could not condone delays beyond the stipulated period, affirming the specificity of the 2013 Act's provisions.
Issues: The main issues included the power of the court to condone delays beyond the statutory limits and the interpretation of the 2013 Act in relation to the Limitation Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the language of Section 74(1) of the 2013 Act expressly excludes the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, thus limiting the condonation of delay to a maximum of 120 days.
Result: Both applications for condonation of delay were dismissed, along with the appeals.
JUDGMENT :
B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.
1. Both the above appeals have been filed by the Appellant [ “MCGM” ] challenging the impugned orders/awards dated 13 th February 2024 passed by the Presiding Officer of the Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation Authority, Nagpur [ “the Reference Authority” ] in two separate references preferred by some of the Respondents [the Original Claimants]. By the impugned orders/awards, the references filed by the Original Claimants [before the Reference Authority] under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 [for short the “ 2013 Act ” ] were partly allowed and the compensation payable to them was enhanced.
2. Since both the above appeals were not filed within the time stipulated under Section 74(1) of the 2013 Act , the above Interim Applications are filed seeking condonation of delay in filing the above two appeals.
3. As mentioned earlier, the impugned orders were passed on 13 th February 2024. The application for a certified copy was filed on the same date and was made available also on the same day. Hence limitation to file the above appeals commenced from 14 th February 2024. The provision for filing an appeal to the High Court from the order/award passed by the Reference Authority is provided under Section 74(1) of the 2013 Act which stipulates that such appeal may be filed in the High Court within a period of sixty days from the date of the award. The proviso to Section 74(1) further stipulates that the High Court may, if it is satisfied that the Appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the said period of sixty days, allow it to be filed within a further period not exceeding sixty days.
4. As far as Interim Application No. 13254 of 2024 in First Appeal (ST.) No. 24058 of 2024 is concerned, the same was lodged on 21 st August 2024. Thus, First Appeal (ST.) No. 24058 of 2024 was lodged 68 days beyond the extended period prescribed by the proviso to Section 74(1) of the 2013 Act and 128 days beyond the period of limitation of sixty days prescribed by Section 74(1) thereof.
5. As far as Interim Application No. 13256 of 2024 is concerned, the same was filed on 5 th September 2024 and First Appeal (St.) No. 25983 of 2024 was Lodged on 6 th September 2024. Consequently, the said appeal was lodged 84 days beyond the extended period prescribed by the proviso to Section 74(1) of the 2013 Act and 144 days beyond the period of limitation of sixty days prescribed by Section 74(1) thereof. It is in this light that the above Applications are filed seeking a condonation of delay in filing the above First appeals.
6. Respondent Nos. 1, and 7 to 11, as well as Respondent No.12, opposed the above Interim Applications on the ground that after a total period of 120 days, [as stipulated in Section 74(1) read with its proviso], this Court has no power to condone the delay. This argument is canvassed on the basis that Section 74(1) prescribes that any person aggrieved by the award passed by the Reference Authority under Section 69 may file an appeal to the High Court within sixty days from the date of the award. This is the initial period prescribed under Section 74(1) of the 2013 Act . However, the proviso to Section 74(1) stipulates that the High Court may, if it is satisfied that the Appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the initial period of sixty days, allow it to be filed within a further period not exceeding sixty days. In other words, once the further period of sixty days expires, the High Court has no power to condone the delay beyond the aforesaid period. In a nutshell, this is the opposition of the Respondents to the above Interim Applications.
7. Considering that this is the argument canvassed on behalf of the concerned Respondents, we have heard the parties on this preliminary issue. If we hold that we have the power to condone the delay, we
The court ruled that under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013, appeals must be filed within 120 days, and the court has no power to condone delays beyond th....
The court ruled that under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013, appeals must be filed within 120 days, and the court has no power to condone delays beyond th....
(1) Acquisition of land – Limitation Act, 1963 applies to Land Acquisition Act, 2013 – Section 24(1)(a) facilitates continuation of acquisition proceedings under 2013 Act by taking off from proceedin....
The court held that appeals filed beyond 120 days without sufficient cause cannot be entertained, emphasizing equal standards for government and private parties in legal proceedings.
The CLB lacked the authority to condone the delay in filing an appeal under Section 58(3) of the Companies Act, 2013, as the Limitation Act is not applicable to quasi-judicial bodies unless expressly....
The High Court lacks the authority to condone delay beyond the statutory period prescribed under FEMA, which excludes the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
(1) Law of limitation is founded on public policy – Appeal which is preferred after expiry of limitation is liable to be dismissed.(2) Bar of limitation – Delay is not liable to be condoned merely be....
Appeal against acquittal – Benefit of Section 5 read with Sections 2 and 3 of Limitation Act, 1963 can be availed in an appeal against acquittal.
The Limitation Act, 1963 applies to the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 1999, allowing for the condonation of delay in filing affidavits unless expressly excluded.
The court ruled that it cannot condone delay beyond 120 days in appeals under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, as Section 5 of the Limitation Act is expressly excluded.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
